Cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention in rheumatoid arthritis: economic evaluation of the Telehealth in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (TeRA) randomized controlled trial
Primary result · Cost-effectiveness (willingness to accept a QALY loss)Result — go to the resultWillingness to accept a QALY loss 89 328 EURAuthors' conclusion
PRO-TR and PRO-TN seem to cost less but provide broadly similar health outcomes compared with conventional follow-up. Between the intervention groups, PRO-TR was significantly less costly.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with RA with low disease activity or in remission; costs from national Danish registers
- Participants
- 294 patients
- Comparison
- PRO-based telehealth follow-up by a nurse or a rheumatologist vs conventional outpatient follow-up
- Primary endpoint
- Costs per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios vs control)
Methodological detailscost-effectiveness analysis, bootstrapping with 10 000 replications, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Bootstrapping with 10 000 replications
- Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Cost-effectiveness (willingness to accept a QALY loss)
Willingness to accept a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) loss
89 328 EUR
Further findings
Costs
- PRO-TR significantly less costly than control
- Relative reduction in costs for PRO-TN not significant
QALYs
- Telehealth groups: minor, non-significant declines in QALYs; control: slight, non-significant increase
Original publication
Cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention in rheumatoid arthritis: economic evaluation of the Telehealth in RA (TeRA) randomized controlled trial. Scand J Rheumatol. Published 20 January 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →